The Scottish economy has 99% of the GDP if the UK without any oil revenue so hardly an oil based economy.

The implication is that oil would only have made up 1% of the Scottish economy.

Which is quite frankly laughable.

We all remember being told that our oil would make us the rich man of Europe and we would be the 9th richest nation with all our black gold and so on,
but now its price has plummeted you seem to be trying to say we were never really needing that oil anyway.

Just face it, a independent Scotland would have relied on a steady oil reserve and a stable international oil price both of which it does not have.
Eventually the oil will run out and what is left is now only worth $50 on the barrel compared to over $100 not so long ago.

So you can say what you want but please stop taking back your old arguments now that you know they are not all they were cracked up to be.

EDIT: Just to clarify, because its not very clear in your post, are you saying that even with out Oil Scotland makes up 99% of UK GDP?

Because we were basing it on the next thirty to fifty years of extraction

I just love that you don't realise that you are pretty much arguing against yourself.

so those predictions that our oil would be our saviour were based on 30 to 50 years of extraction and did not take into account the fluctuating price
and there was no real plan for after we run out of oil.

The whole argument is kind of mute anyway seeing as the Yes Vote lost.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
No I said that Scotland's GDP if 99% of the UK without oil, with oil it is much higher. That does not mean oil is only 1 % of the Scottish economy.
The oil was and is a bonus. The economy was never based round it as you stated.
You do understand that the Scottish economy is not just oil don't you?

Because we were basing it on the next thirty to fifty years of extraction

I just love that you don't realise that you are pretty much arguing against yourself.

so those predictions that our oil would be our saviour were based on 30 to 50 years of extraction and did not take into account the fluctuating price
and there was no real plan for after we run out of oil.

The whole argument is kind of mute anyway seeing as the Yes Vote lost.

Absolutely correct other than it did take it into account and there was a plan.
Also worth pointing out tho whole thread was started by a no supporter. We know the result was No we just also know that was the wrong decision.

The best example is Norway. They have a population of 5 million, but only one area accounts for 75% of all GDP - that's the research centers based on
Oil/Gas exploration. Other parts of Norway like Oslo have industries like film production and agriculture.

Scotland has the Oil/Gas industry in Aberdeen and the coast (10,000 people). Then there are the creative software industries as well as film
production. All cities have universities with international students. In any case, the big money doesn't come from oil production, but from oil
exploration. They'll take a gamble on drilling 100 exploration wells, for a few dozen to be profitable.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Since in an earlier post you didn't seem to know that Scotland has any source of GDP other than oil you will forgive me questioning your
understanding of per capita.
To simplify still further if there was no oil at all in Scotland's part of the North Sea there would still be no real difference per person in size
of the economy between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
Can therefore explain your argument that Scotland's economy is totally oil based?

Because we were basing it on the next thirty to fifty years of extraction

I just love that you don't realise that you are pretty much arguing against yourself.

so those predictions that our oil would be our saviour were based on 30 to 50 years of extraction and did not take into account the fluctuating price
and there was no real plan for after we run out of oil.

The whole argument is kind of mute anyway seeing as the Yes Vote lost.

Who said it was our saviour.? Only you as far as i can see. I said it was Bonus Money and that if managed correctly, something the Westminster has
never done would have stood us in good stead for the future, you know, like Norway has done. Doesn't matter now anyway, the likes of yourself voted
to stand still and accept what's to come from Westminster.

You should probably realize as well its not about stars or flags regarding the majority of long term members, its about voicing our opinion then
discussing that opinion. And in the process possibly learning something.

Since no one agrees what the promised new powers actually are the odds of them being delivered are pretty slim.

I'll reserve final judgement until the election manifesto's are published....but I've got to agree, its becoming more and more unlikely that any of
the major parties will deliver on the promises they made in the run up to the referendum.....and that would be absolutely disgraceful and a total
betrayal.
I'd feel angry and betrayed myself and as you know I'm English and pro-Union.

If they fail to deliver on increased devolved powers to Holyrood then we ALL should make a stand and force them to do so - anything less would be a
sign of just how weak, compliant and impotent we ALL have become.

But alas, I suspect it'll all be to no avail and yet another case of same old same old.

1) They would still be under UK control at this point as the referendum was never due to take effect until later this year.

2) It wasn't a given that they would get EU membership. They would have had to have applied to join the EU, and wouldn't have met ANY of the basic
economic requirements for membership. Unemployment alone would have stopped them from being approved.

3) It's also not likely that they would have gotten any support from the World Bank or IMF either, especially if, as suggested, they were going to
keep the UK Pound Sterling as their currency against the wishes of the UK Government. Using a foreign currency outside of their control would mean
that they wouldn't be able to borrow money or issue bonds.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.